Q480 Mr Prosser: Minister,
it is encouraging to hear your wish to meet with Muslim people
on the ground and young Muslim people in particular. Just before
you took your seat we talked to some young Muslim people from
Bolton, which you might know, who took part in the PeaceMaker
Survey, and you could do no better than to start your discussions
with those people, and perhaps a note from our Command Meeting
will give you some good signposts for the future. My questions
though are to do with the issue which you have just left us with,
Islamophobia and discrimination. The situation at present is that
although you classify, for instance, stop and search, by ethnicity,
you do not classify it by religion, and there is quite a debate
raging over the issue of whether there has been a disproportionate
increase in the number of stop and searches against Muslims since
9/11. Notwithstanding the figures you have given us, would it
not be a good idea if the Home Office classified stop and searches
by religion so it would show whether this disproportionality is
taking place?

Ms Blears: First of all, Mr Prosser,
can I say I would be delighted to take up your suggestion. I have
met those young people and to do that would be very good I think.
This is a very controversial issue. It is a debate which is raging
at the moment, as to whether or not we should monitor on the basis
of religion rather than the way we monitor at the moment. Some
people feel very strongly that religion is an intensely private
matter and would not want to declare it. That would then make
it difficult to be assured that our statistics were robust, depending
on the proportion of people who were prepared to declare their
religion. In some other cases people have been asked to declare
their religion and there have been some, what are described in
my briefing notes as "perverse reactions" and I do not
know what kind of entries people gave. Because it is controversial,
and I can see why some people would want it to be done, in fact
the Community Panel which I have just referred to are going to
be looking at this at their next meeting which is on 14 March,
and I shall be very interested indeed to see what their recommendations
are with regard to this. As I say, I think opinion is evenly split
around this issue and I certainly do not have a fixed view about
whether or not we ought to do it but there are some real logistical
problems in getting statistics which are sufficiently robust for
us to monitor them.

Q481 Mr Prosser: It could
be a subject you could discuss in your session with the young
Muslims.

Ms Blears: Indeed.

Q482 Mr Prosser: An area
which is not quite so dubious, I say, is the actual incidents
of Islamophobia and at the moment we have no independent agency
or no independent gathering organisation to number these. Do you
think the Home Office should help set up such an agency?

Ms Blears: We currently have no
plans to have a statutory body because we do not think that would
be appropriate. There is the Community Security Trust which is
an independent charity which monitors anti-Semitic incidents and
it may well be that something similar might be appropriate in
relation to Islamophobia. There is the Muslim Faith Forum, which
is a joint group between the community, the Home Office and the
Metropolitan Police, and that is very active. We also have a project
called "Don't Suffer in Silence" which again is about
third party reporting, and that is going to be piloted in three
London Boroughs, in West Lancashire and in Lincolnshire, and already
forces up and down the country are very interested in seeing if
they can get more reporting of these kind of incidents. So there
are a number of models which are out there. As I say, I would
not want to see a national statutory body but I think there are
a number of models which we can build on to make sure there is
a broader awareness of the fact these incidents are taking place.

Q483 David Winnick: On
incitement to religious hatred, there continues to be concern;
Rowan Atkinson for example has argued that this would be a restriction
on entertainers like himself having a "go", if that
is the right expression, at religion. Why should the Islamic religion
be more protected than, say, the Christian religion or the Jewish
religion or any other religion one would like to name? What would
be your reaction to that?

Ms Blears: I agree that one religion
should not be protected above another, and the provision we have
in the Serious and Organised Crime Bill is designed to give the
same protection to Christian people and to Muslim people as currently
exists for Jewish people and Sikhs, because under the current
Public Order Provisions which are about racial hatred the actual
issues which give rise to the hatred can in fact be religion or
anything else. So there is a provision to protect Jews and Sikhs.
What there is not, is a similar provision to protect Muslims and
Christian people from having hatred stirred up against them. I
want to be very clear on the record here, that this legislation
is not about protecting religions, it is not about protecting
ideologies, it is about protecting people, and it prevents people
having hatred stirred up against them on the grounds of their
religious belief, or indeed lack of it, because it also protects
people who do not conform to a particular religion from having
hatred stirred up against them. It is nothing to do with satire,
with ridicule, with comedy, you can be as offensive as you like,
it is up to you, but if you stir up hatred against people I do
not think you should be allowed to do that, whether on the grounds
of their race or their religion.

Q484 David Winnick: I
accept your argument, I actually argued and voted for the law
in order that it is the same way as, for instance, Jewish and
Hindus, who are protected by previous legislation. Do you believe,
Minister, there are nevertheless expectations, say in the Muslim
community, that the religion itself will be protected, and therefore
if a book comes out like Salman Rushdie's book, then the Attorney-General
be undoubtedly be pressed to take action through the courts?

Ms Blears: I think when this whole
area was first mooted, before any provisions were drafted, there
was indeed some confusion about what the provisions would look
like and that was about a year or so ago. I think since the provision
was drafted, that confusion and misunderstanding have actually
been cleared up, and I know that Iqbal Sacranie wrote a letter
in February where he sets out very clearly his understanding of
the provisions as currently drafted and what they do. So it is
important that we are very clear about it and it is not about
protecting a particular religion. There are a number of safeguards
which will prevent vexatious or frivolous proceedings. First of
all, you have the ordinary test for any prosecution, is it likely
to succeed, is it in the public interest, then you have the extra
hurdle here about the Attorney-General having to take a view on
it, and the Attorney-General has to act in accordance with human
rights. So there are four different hurdles in there, so I do
not think we are going to get vexatious proceedings. As the Act
gets known and as people know what the provision is more clearly,
there is likely to be less pressure for prosecutions. On the race
side, we have only ever had 86 references for prosecution in the
period 2001-04. So we are not inundated with these things but
it is a case of managing that quite carefully. In relation to
books or plays, and there was the play in Birmingham as well,
neither of those would have been protected, because this is about
protecting people so they do not have hatred stirred up against
them on the grounds of their religion. Clearly there will be a
lot of debate around these issues because they are controversial
but I think the law will be pretty clear and hopefully well understood.

Q485 David Winnick: I
am not an authority on this but as I understand the position,
religious believers, again I suppose not all of them by any means,
are rather sensitive about their religion and we have had protests
from Christians over the recent Springer programme. Can we be
quite clear about this. Just as that was done within the law,
however much I understand some Christians' viewsand one
or two constituents have written to me over the issue and I have
written to the BBC on their behalf, not my behalfinsofar
as that was perfectly legitimate, perfectly lawful in a democratic
country, then the same could be done about any other religionJewish,
Hindu, Muslimas well, if this law comes into operation?
Are we absolutely clear on that, Minister?

Ms Blears: Yes. The offence as
set out in the Bill is very clear and it has to be words or actions
that are intended or likely to stir up hatred against people on
the grounds of their religious belief or lack of it. There are
three very clear and distinct limbs to the offence and it is about
stirring up hatred against people on the grounds of their religious
belief. I think it is clear. I know there are some members who
do not agree with that. We did have a very, very lengthy debate
in Committee Stage and at Report Stage of the Bill. I am satisfied
the law is clear and I have no doubt that the Attorney-General
in administering that law will have a similar, clear-sighted view.

David Winnick: I hope that satisfies
Mr Rowan Atkinson. Whether it does or not, remains to be seen.

Q486 Mr Clappison: Minister,
I think you have accepted, as you accepted in Committee, that
the Bill has been framed in terms of protecting people, but I
think you accepted yourself in Committee that the offence could
be committed by saying something about religion without reference
to people.

Ms Blears: What I said was that
if it had the effect of stirring up hatred against people on the
grounds of their religion, that could be so and it would depend
on those circumstances.

Q487 Mr Clappison: Correct,
and that could be done through a criticism of the religion itself.

Ms Blears: You say "a criticism",
I think it would have to be of huge significance in order for
it to stir up a hatred, because it is the hatred it is aimed at.

Q488 Mr Clappison: It
might be a significant criticism of a religion then.

Ms Blears: You and I can debate
what that threshold might be. Clearly the Attorney-General will
need to take a view on whether or not constituent parts of the
offence are sufficiently fulfilled for there to be a criminal
act committed.

Q489 Mr Clappison: Can
I come on to that, because since then, the Director of Public
Prosecutions has given evidence to the Committee saying it is
a question ofI think his words were that the main issue
around it is"managing expectations". What are
you doing to manage expectations because in some quarters it has
got out that this is going to result in far more prosecutions
than looks likely, at least according to the present Director
of Public Prosecutions?

Ms Blears: As I have explained,
before the clause was drafted people did have confused expectations
about what might be delivered. Since the clause was drafted, debated,
considered, by the House of Commonsthere has been a lengthy
discussion of itI think the Government has been crystal
clear in terms of what it is aiming to prevent. It is not about
protecting religion, it is about protecting people. It does not
prevent satire, ridicule, all of those things, it prevents people
stirring up hatred against others on the grounds of their religion.
I think we have been very clear about that and I think the letter
from the Muslim Council now accepts that entirely. We also have
support from a whole range of faith groups, it is not just the
Government. A whole range of faith groups actually support this
law being brought in because it provides a level playing field
and gives the same protection to Muslims and Christians as has
been available to Jews and Sikhs for some considerable time.

Q490 Mr Clappison: So
whatever faith group it might be, Christian, Buddhist, whatever,
you feel expectations are now at a realistic level and they have
not been raised too high?

Ms Blears: I have certainly tried
to ensure that the Government has done everything it can to be
as clear as possible. I think we will need to have on-going dialogue
because we deal with a whole range of faith groups. We certainly
do not want to see a position where this provision is used to
heighten community tension by having inter-faith disputes. That
is absolutely not what we want to do and that is why it is important
for us to carry on having this dialogue with those faith groups
to ensure they are very clear about what the law can and cannot
do.

Q491 Chairman: On a broader
point about community cohesion, over the last three or four years
there does seem to have been a marked growth in every single faith
group of organised groups of people whose main aim is to complain
about offences being committed against their beliefs, whether
they are Jewish, Sikh, Muslim; every faith group has this. Are
you worried that this growth of sensitivity to offence, to criticism,
is actually helping to undermine community relations, if each
faith group becomes more and more defensive about perceived criticisms,
either of their beliefs or of their activities? If so, is there
anything the Government can do, aside from legislation, to try
and rebuild the atmosphere of greater religious tolerance which
seemed to be much more common place ten years ago?

Ms Blears: I think it is a matter
of concern when people cannot have criticism without being immensely
defensive. I think we would all want to try to create an atmosphere
where people can debate vigorously and with passion and conviction,
but at the same time still have respect for one another's views.
I am not unhappy that people feel very strongly about their religion,
because I think in some ways that is a strength for people and
helps them to deal with all kinds of adversity which are around
us, but the worry is when that passion, conviction and strength
of faith becomes defensive and that could possibly lead to that
kind of difficult relationship. I think one of the main things
we can do is encourage more inter-faith work. We have been supporting
a whole range of inter-faith organisations. We have also been
bringing together rabbis and imams to work together to see what
are some of the common strands of their faiths and then to debate
some of the differences, and I am pleased to support as much of
that work as I possibly can. The more people understand each other
and the more they meet face-to-face, in my experience, the less
tension we have; the more people conduct correspondence from afar,
the more likely it is to result in tension.

Q492 Bob Russell: Minister,
would you accept that the view from the public bar of the Dog
and Duck is that immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees and indeed
the settled ethnic minorities, are all basically the same? How
has that impression come about? Is this the media which has done
this?

Ms Blears: I think it is partly
the media. I think some of the reporting, some of the language
which is usedyou only have to look at some of the newspapers
we see and some of the dreadful headlines which are out therehas
been influential in this. I am not going to blame it all simply
on the media, also there are some fairly pernicious political
groups around as well, the BNP and others, who take advantage
of tensions which are in communities and issue some pretty vile
propaganda which can help to stoke these feelings amongst people.
There are some things we can try and do to help, if you like,
bust the myths which go on around asylum seeking. I know my own
local authority in Salford has issued a tremendous leaflet which
goes through the myths one by one, about what benefits people
get, what housing people get, what services they getthe
kind of myths which are around, like, "Every asylum seeker
is living in a marvellous, wonderful, well-furnished property"
et ceteraand I think it is incumbent particularly
on local authorities to try and do as much of that work as they
can. I think the mayor who was elected in Stoke-on-Trent actually
made a personal campaign to go out there and do exactly that kind
of work. So it is partly the media but also these terms which
then become general currency, if you like, and sometimes all of
us can be guilty of that.

Q493 Bob Russell: I am
delighted with these local examples which you have given, but
do you not think that Government Ministers should be doing a lot
more in the hope that will balance perhaps some of the media coverage?
Do you think the media have reported responsibly? You have only
mentioned the written word, are you saying the radio and television
are not in your sights when making these criticisms, that it is
only the newspapers? Could you be more specific because clearly
it is not all the newspapers, surely?

Ms Blears: No, but I do not think
it is appropriate, Mr Russell, for me to sit here and condemn
one newspaper and not another. I have concerns generally about
the tone of reporting. I think it is worse in some media outlets
than in others. That is why we have set up a couple of things.
We set up a Media Practitioners' Group following the disturbances
we had in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford, to bring the media people
together. We have also recently funded a practical set of guidance
for editors and journalists about how to (a) stay within the law
in their reporting and (b) how they can have more literacy around
some of these complex issues concerning religion and culture,
and help them use some other words than the ones they tend to
cling to. So that is very practical help. Also the Improvement
and Development Agency, which works with local government, has
produced some guidance for local authorities' communications people,
so they can help to educate their local media in their area about
what they can do as well.

Q494 Bob Russell: Does
that best practice include the National Union of Journalists,
because my recollection is the NUJ has a very strong code of conduct
which I would suggest some Fleet Street newspapers perhaps do
not really follow? Should the NUJ be brought into this as well?

Ms Blears: I am not sure if they
are members of the Media Practitioners' Group; I would be surprised
if they were not. I will certainly look into that, Mr Russell,
I think that is an excellent suggestion and one we should take
on board. I will just make another point, you said about Government
Ministers making statements around this. You will know in the
debate around immigration and asylum we have been at pains to
talk about the positive contribution which is made by many of
the people who come to this country and do jobs in our Health
Service and other facilities. That is very much a balanced part
of our strategy, to try and make sure we do get the benefit which
comes from managed migration to this country clearly in the public's
mind.

Q495 Bob Russell: I welcome
that and I will ask you also to regularly publish the fact that
inward investment, so to speak, results from those who are settled
here working and being net contributors to the national economy
and not a drain, and I think that is something which if it was
said time and time again by, I suggest, you and Home Office colleagues
it would have an impact on the media. So are you saying the media
coverage of these issues has been a significant factor? I think
you are.

Ms Blears: Yes, I think the language
used has sometimes not helped to create the kind of tolerant and
inclusive society we would all want to see. What is important
is that we take practical steps to try and change that. We cannot
dictate what is in the newspapers, neither should we, we have
a free press which is out there doing its job of reporting, but
what we can do is try and explain these issues to the journalists,
the people involved, and see if we can influence them in terms
of some of the language used.

Q496 Bob Russell: Would
you acknowledge if the media gave a balanced reportthe
fears we have from the various ethnic minorities and particularly
those we have heard from the Muslim communitiesthat would
go a long way to retrieving the situation?

Ms Blears: I think it would help
significantly if all of this debate was conducted in a less confrontational
manner.

Q497 Mr Clappison: Minister,
it is clear that many people in Britain today are sceptical about
the reality of the terrorist threat to the country. What are you
doing to convince them?

Ms Blears: I would challenge,
first of all, the basic presumption that you make, Mr Clappison,
that the public are sceptical about the terrorist threat. I think
the publicand this is my general belief as well as on this
particular issueare far more capable of understanding complex,
difficult, frightening, complicated issues than we ever give them
credit for, and they are also capable, dare I say, of seeing through
some of the most complex, obfuscating language that any of us
use as politicians as well. The poll which was in the Daily
Telegraph yesterday was quite enlightening to me. It seemed
to indicate that the public did know what we were intending to
do to try to contain the terrorist threat, something like 75%
of them agreed with what we were trying to do, they understood
the balance between national security and civil libertiescomplex
issuesand I was quite heartened by that. But that does
not mean we have not got more to do, and that is why we have got
an on-going communications strategy around our counter-terrorism
strategy itself. We have just recently issued the Prepare for
an Emergency booklet which went to every household. We are
doing quite a lot of communications work with the business sector,
with the voluntary sector. We do need to do more with the general
public as well as that booklet, to continue to talk to them about
the nature of the threat. I suppose my bottom line is that we
try and keep the public alert but not alarmed, and that is quite
a difficult balance to draw. But our general mission statement
is to reduce the terrorist threat so our citizens can go about
their daily business free from fear. That to me is what is most
important hereenough information but not to the point where
people are constrained from living their ordinary lives because
of the terrorist threat.

Q498 Mr Clappison: I think
many people would agree with what you are saying on that, Minister,
but I mentioned the word "sceptical" in my question.
Do you agree it is important that people should be able to have
trust in information, and trust in particular what the Government
is telling us, and that is something the Government should hold
in high esteem?

Ms Blears: Yes I do, because inevitably
on these issues there will be things which cannot be revealed
to the general public, and we had a debate around a lot of that
yesterday, about how much evidence can be produced in the normal
criminal justice system and how much can be shown to defendants
and their legal representatives, and inevitably we are asking
people to take some of this on trust; not just trust in the Government
but trust in the security services, trust in the police, as well.
If that trust breaks down, I agree with you, that would damage
our efforts to really fulfil our counter-terrorism strategy.

Q499 Mr Clappison: I do
not want to go back over the ground which we went over yesterday,
I am sure we will come back to that in the future, but can I move
on to a slightly different subject, and that is the question of
extremist religious views which are imported into the country
in some cases, particularly the extremist Islamic views which
have come in? We know the vast majority of imams and religious
leaders in the Muslim community are sincere, genuine and moderate,
but we do have a problemand I think this is recognisedwith
some preaching more extreme views coming from certain parts of
the world. What policy do you have on that, particularly individuals
who come trying to lead people astray with an extreme view?

Ms Blears: I think the general
background is that clearly we have a right to free speech in this
country, a democratic right, of which we are rightly proud, but
the difficulty is when people start to use that right to free
speech to say some pretty horrendous things, and it is a very
fine line when they cross that boundary between free speech and
inciting people to commit crime. The police monitor some of these
extremist preachers in a very careful way in terms of tapes, analysing
their words, analysing what has been said and they will if possible
prosecute. In fact there was Abdullah El-Faisal, who was convicted
in February 2003. He was a preacher and he was convicted of incitement
to murder and he got nine years because he was encouraging people
to kill other people during some of his preaching. So action can
be taken but it is a fine line. We monitor all the time to see
whether that line is being crossed.